IndigoDad

I mean what's the scope of who the revelation to? Who's bound by the covenant? Who's bound by the moral code?

All eukaryotes?
All animals?
All chordates?
All mammals?
All primates?
All hominids?
All homo sapiens?
Specific race(s)?
Specific age(s)?
One or both genders the same?
Specific clans?
Specific individuals?

Are there any verses that help clarify the Bible's stance on this?

Thanks.

Peter Kirby

The old covenant applies to Israel. The new covenant applies to all the nations, woman or man, gentile or jew, servant or free. I'm too lazy to look up the cites at the moment. Add salt as needed.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

pob14

Eukaryotes ROCK! Prokaryotes SUCK! Well, actually they transport nutrients across their cell membranes by osmosis or active transport, but that's almost the same.

So anyway, yeah, eukaryotes are saved, and prokaryotes are going to Prokaryotic Hell.

Berggy

If the New Covenant applies to 'everyone', then why does Romans 9:4 say that the covenants, plural, were for the Israelites? Even more so, why does Matthew 15:24 say that Christ was "sent" not but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

Even more so, if the word "gentiles" is the Greek word "ethnos", where many greek lexicons will tell you that it means tribes, specifically non-jewish ones, and the word "jewish" simply means Judean, or from the country of Judea and based on the context of those simple verses, would that mean that Christ was sent not only unto those that resided in Judea, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the gentiles that werent specifically Judean, but still apart of that family?

I would think so

Anat

Well, the Noachide covenant is older and is supposed to be for all humans.

Berggy

Not unless you can prove that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, which in turn would be that Adam and Eve's lineage can be trace straight to Noah, which in turn shows that the Flood of Noah was not world-wide, for the basis for a world-wide flood can only be argued for if you believe that Adam and Eve spawned all of mankind.

Gundulf

Actually, I think it just applies to you.


Well, to be (slightly) more serious, I imagine that circumcision thing was only aimed at a particular gender...

Anat

Some quotes supporting the view that the authors of Genesis had been thinking of a worldwide flood:

Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'"

7:19 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered."

7:21-23 "And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died. And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark."

Notice the prevalence of the words 'all' and 'every'.

gstafleu

But the question is: to whom in Israel/nations? My guess is the answer would be: man, or more modern, human beings or persons. Fine, but that helps only a little, even considering the gentile/jew/servant/free bit. Because who are persons has always been cause for interesting prevarications. E.g. to keep women from voting, they were for quite a while non-persons. Same for persons with a non-dominant skin color.

Historically the answer has usually been: it applies to everybody but only the tribe really counts. Looking a bit broader we have the question: can chimps be saved? If so, how about lemurs, not to mention dolphins? And no, that is not trying to be disingenuous, why would the applicability of something so important as being saved be limited to (a subset of) Homo sapiens? But that may be more of a GRD discussion. My guess is the bible doesn't say anything about it, simply because the thought never occurred to the authors.

Gerard Stafleu

Berggy

Yes, indeed, but then again, you would have to take into context Genesis 5:1. If Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind, then there would be no need to be specific in saying that this is the book of the generations of Adam.

There is specification and this alone shows that there could never have been a world-wide flood, Biblically, simply because Adam's lineage can be traced straight to Noah, which in turn could only mean that those passages are referring to those animals and substances that were made in and around were Adam and Eve lived, all that would pertain specifically to them.

The flood of Noah was regional, not world-wide. It encompassed the area of where Noah and his people lived, not the entire planet earth.